Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] firmware: add SmPL grammar to avoid issues

From: Luis R. Rodriguez
Date: Wed Jul 13 2016 - 22:15:18 EST


On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 07:52:07AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Hi Luis,
>
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 02:56:44AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 03:54:16PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >>The firmware API has had some issues a while ago, some of this is
> >>not well documented, and its still hard to grasp. This documents
> >>some of these issues, adds SmPL grammar rules to enable us to hunt
> >>for issues, and annotations to help us with our effort to finally
> >>compartamentalize that pesky usermode helper.
> >>
> >>Previously this was just one patch, the grammar rule to help
> >>find request firmware API users on init or probe, this series
> >>extends that effort with usermode helper grammar rules, and some
> >>annotations and documentation on the firmware_class driver to
> >>avoid further issues. Documenting the usermode helper and making
> >>it clear why we cannot remove it is important for analysis for
> >>the next series which adds the new flexible sysdata firmware API.
> >>
> >>This series depends on the coccicheck series which enables
> >>annotations on coccinelle patches to require a specific
> >>version of coccinelle [0], as such coordination with Michal is
> >>in order.
> >
> >Michal is out until July 11, and upon further thought such coordination
> >is not need, the annotation is in place as comments and as such
> >merging this now won't have any negative effects other than the version
> >check. Also the patches in question for the coccicheck change are all
> >acked now and I expect them to be merged anyway.
> >
> >Which tree should firmware changes go through ?
>
> >>This series is also further extended next with the new sydata
> >>API, the full set of changes is available on my linux-next tree [1].
> >>
> >>Perhaps now a good time to discuss -- if 0-day should enable the rule
> >>scripts/coccinelle/api/request_firmware-usermode.cocci to be called on
> >>every 0-day iteration, it runs rather fast and it should help police
> >>against avoiding futher explicit users of the usermode helper.
> >
> >And if we are going to merge this anyone oppose enabling hunting
> >for further explicit users of the usermode helper using grammar through
> >0-day ?
>
> When *.cocci scripts lands upstream they'll be auto picked up by the
> 0-day bot to guard new patches/commits.

Great thanks!

> Are there further steps 0-day should do for request_firmware-upstream.cocci?

It just requires coccinelle >= 1.0.5.

Luis